The financial times is reporting the United Nations kept 33% of all sunami aid donated from countries around the world. The UN reported the 33% as 'administrative' costs. haha, yea right.

First of all, if you want to appear credible on this, at least learn how to spell "Tsunami". It's not that hard of a word to look up.

 

Secondly, Here is a source for the article, from UPI. Also wasn't hard to find.

 

Third, the UPI article says it's somewhere between 18 and 32%, not firmly 1/3, I don't know what the FT article says because you didn't excerpt it, and I don't have a subscription.

First of all, if you want to appear credible on this, at least learn how to spell "Tsunami".  It's not that hard of a word to look up.

 

Secondly, Here is a source for the article, from UPI.  Also wasn't hard to find.

 

Third, the UPI article says it's somewhere between 18 and 32%, not firmly 1/3, I don't know what the FT article says because you didn't excerpt it, and I don't have a subscription.

 

 

lol

 

kinda b****y today, huh. You know what, even 18% is a scandal but I am guessing its about a 33%.

 

ps.

i don't give a f*** if i spelled tsunami wrong.

18% is not necessarily that bad. I'm guessing that administrative costs would include fueling airplanes and ships to bring aid, hiring people to administer the aid to the regions affected... and there were A LOT of regions affected.

18% is not necessarily that bad. I'm guessing that administrative costs would include fueling airplanes and ships to bring aid

 

 

I don't think logistics would be considered an administrative cost.

There are a few other possible considerations too...the U.N. fund in question was composed of $590 million in donations, altogether there was something liek $15 billion guaranteed and $12 billion delivered in tsunami aid, it's very likely that the U.N. would have had a hand in organizing how other aid was delivered...whether or not those funds came from other donations I don't know, but that's one logical thing to consider.

 

There are, as noted above, other questions about what could be considered "Administrative" costs...i don't know about identifying bodies, but keeping casualty lists, organizing shipments of supplies to remote regions, organizing donor conferences, all those things could be considered potential administrative costs as well.

 

And 18% would not be good, but it would not be horrific either. For example, the Christian Children's fund, the one you hear about whenever you watch commercials on the History Channel, spends something like 15-20% of their donations on administrative costs. The Salvation Army is somewhere in teh same range. 33% would be pretty damn inefficient if they were only doing the exact same sorts of things as the other charities, but then again, I still don't have a good answer as to what they're administering.

There are a few other possible considerations too...the U.N. fund in question was composed of $590 million in donations, altogether there was something liek $15 billion guaranteed and $12 billion delivered in tsunami aid, it's very likely that the U.N. would have had a hand in organizing how other aid was delivered...whether or not those funds came from other donations I don't know, but that's one logical thing to consider.

 

There are, as noted above, other questions about what could be considered "Administrative" costs...i don't know about identifying bodies, but keeping casualty lists, organizing shipments of supplies to remote regions, organizing donor conferences, all those things could be considered potential administrative costs as well.

 

And 18% would not be good, but it would not be horrific either.  For example, the Christian Children's fund, the one you hear about whenever you watch commercials on the History Channel, spends something like 15-20% of their donations on administrative costs.  The Salvation Army is somewhere in teh same range.  33% would be pretty damn inefficient if they were only doing the exact same sorts of things as the other charities, but then again, I still don't have a good answer as to what they're administering.

 

 

haha, 18% is not good. 32% means a lot of UN people are pocketing the money (suprise, suprise)

 

Christian relief fund 6% http://www.christianrelieffund.org/AR/ar_2004.htm

 

Salvation army 12% (the salvation army is often critized for being inefficient ) http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0144.html

 

United Way 5% http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0253.html

 

American cancel society 8% http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0003.html

 

Catholic charities 10% http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0030.html

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...23-010515-8477r

NewsTrack

Overheads take up to 1/3 of tsunami funds

NEW YORK, Dec. 23 (UPI) -- Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead.

 

The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs. The $590 million was part of the United Nation's $1.1 billion disaster flash appeal.

 

The newspaper also found several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials.

 

The flash appeal covered the money donated by governments to the world body in the first weeks after the disaster to fund the early aid work, the Times reported.

 

The newspaper said details of that appeal it obtained from U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program showed 18 percent to 32 percent of the expenditure related to staff, administration and other costs.

 

Some agencies say non-profit aid organizations should claim no more than 10 percent of project funds for administration costs, the report said.

 

Yes, it says UP TO 1/3rd, but it also points out "several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials. " Given their history, 1/3rd might be on the low side.

Now that all the bribes dried up from Saddam Hussein I guess Kofi and Kojo are looking for a new racket to get their slimy hands into.

Now that all the bribes dried up from Saddam Hussein I guess Kofi and Kojo are looking for a new racket to get their slimy hands into.

 

 

kofi can't be expected to lower his standard of living just because evil George Bush ruined his 'sweet' oil for food hook-up.

The UN has been worthless and slimy for years, and I pray for your sanity if you think otherwise.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...23-010515-8477r

Yes, it says UP TO 1/3rd, but it also points out "several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials. "  Given their history, 1/3rd might be on the low side.

 

I had heard that the U.N. gave a lower figure for overhead than the 32%. That might've been 18%, or possibly lower. Either way, I don't trust them. Corruption in the U.N. is rampant. I recall one of the moron higher-ups over there calling America "stingy" a year or two ago (despite the fact that we supply more money to both them and charities in general than anyone else in the world). Is asking for accountability when dealing with $590 million "stingy" as well? Is it "stingy" for us to ask for accountability in the Oil-for-Food and Somalian rape scandals? :finger

 

We should cut their funding until they clean house and act responsibly. Right now, they're a nearly-worthless organization.